DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on April 14, 2026, claims 1 – 11, 13 – 20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 8, 15, 17 have been amended and claims 12, 21 have been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 has been amended to recite “… using argon milling …removing portions of the deposited film … to expose each of the plurality of electrical contact regions…wherein the overetch removes a portion of gold at each of the ... electrical contact regions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim initially introduces the objects of a “metal”, and a “a plurality of electrical contacts”. There is no indication of the specific material of either or both the metal and plurality of electric contacts, and thus there is a lack of clarity of what is “gold” over the recited regions: the sidewalls of the “metal” (since gold is a metal)? The electrical contacts that may be (but not defined to comprise or consist of) gold? An unrecited element disposed in the same region of the electrical contacts, ect? The Examiner notes that dependent claim 16 aggravates the issue as it allows for the recited metal to be gold. In contrast, claim 1 expressly defines the electrical contact regions to comprise gold, thus establishing sufficient antecedent basis.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be fairly apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Dependent claims not enumerated above are rejected on the basis of their parent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites [emphasis added]:
using ion milling, selectively removing portions of the deposited film of HfO2, to expose a surface comprising gold or other conductive material suitable for electrical interconnect.
However, parent claim 1 had been amended to recite:
wherein the component includes a plurality of electrical contact regions each comprising
gold, the method further comprising [emphasis and mappings added]:
using argon ion milling with over etch between 50%-150%, inclusive, selectively removing portions of the deposited film of HfO2, each having a thickness between 10 nm and 50 nm, to expose each of the plurality of electrical contact regions [electrical interconnects], wherein the over etch removes a portion of gold at each of the plurality of electrical contact regions.
There are no indications that the “selectively removing portions of the deposited film of HfO2” of claim 10 is referring to separate portions than that recited in parent claim 1, and thus an issue arises that the two recited removed-portions of the respective claims appear to refer to the same removed portions. Accordingly, claim 10 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites [emphasis added]:
using ion milling for removing the portions of the deposited film.
However, parent claim 15 recites:
using argon ion milling with over etch between 50%-150%, inclusive, removing portions of the deposited film …
There are no indications that the “portions of the deposited film” of claim 19 is referring to separate portions than that recited in parent claim 15, and thus an issue arises that the two recited removed-portions of the respective claims appear to refer to the same removed portions. Accordingly, claim 19 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 102 or alternatively under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 9, 11, 13, 14 are allowed.
Claims 15 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach and does not reasonably suggest the recited method for making an article, the method comprising [emphasis added]:
providing a component of a machine, wherein the component has at least one internal cavity accessible for processing, and wherein the component is to be exposed to an acid liquid, an alkali liquid, or another liquid that chemically attacks the component during usage of the machine;
selecting a target thickness for a film of HfO2 that will avoid formation of pinholes, thin spots and nodule growth; and
using atomic layer deposition (ALD) with the processing adjusted for the target thickness, depositing the film of HfO2 as a conformal layer and as a protective coating on the component, including on a surface of the at least one internal cavity, to form a coated component, wherein the component includes a plurality of electrical contact regions each comprising gold, the method further comprising:
using argon ion milling with over etch between 50%-150%, inclusive, selectively removing portions of the deposited film of HfO2, each having a thickness between 10 nm and 50 nm, to expose each of the plurality of electrical contact regions, wherein the over etch removes a portion of gold at each of the plurality of electrical contact regions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights